taiji2 writes:
The question you people here need to chew on is that if the natural laws in fact are a creation of god (or what ever term you wish to use), where does that leave your arguments?
Stile writes:
I think the answer is quite obvious: It would leave the arguments as being wrong.
I think that answer presumes a lot.
First, to accurately answer the question, we need to know, which arguments? There are millions of different arguments on this site.
If we assume he's referring specifically to the argument over creationism and evolution, assuming that some deity is responsible for natural laws wouldn't change the argument one whit. The argument is based on evidence we see in nature, and that evidence demonstrates that life evolved on this planet. Whether that evolution followed laws created by a diety, laws that are simply inherent in the nature of reality, or laws created by a 15 year old in a computer lab doesn't change the analysis of the evidence or the conclusions we draw from it.
Edited by subbie, : Subtitle
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
™ Version 4.2
